Filetype PDF | Diposting 28 Jun 2022 | 3 thn lalu
Authentication
digital resources
255x Tipe PDF Ukuran file 0.40 MB
178
© Jonathan Bennett
[Brackets] enclose editorial explanations. Small ·dots· enclose material that has been added, but can be read as
though it were part of the original text. Occasional bullets, and also indenting of passages that are not quotations,
are meant as aids to grasping the structure of a sentence or a thought. Every four-point ellipsis . . . . indicates the
omission of a brief passage that seems to present more difficulty than it is worth.
Hobbes wrote Leviathan in Latin and in English; it is not always clear which parts were done first in
English and which in Latin. The present text is based on the English version, but sometimes the Latin seems better
and is followed instead; and the whole of chapter 46 and some of 47 are given in both English and Latin versions.
Edwin Curley’s fine edition of the English work (Hackett, 1994) has provided all the information used here
regarding the Latin version, the main lines of the translations from it, and other information given here between
square brackets. --Biblical references are given at the end.
First launched: August 2007
* * * * *
LEVIATHAN
By Thomas Hobbes
Part IV. The kingdom of darkness
Chapter 44. Spiritual darkness from misinterpretation of scripture
As well as the sovereign powers, divine and human, that I have been talking about, Scripture
mentions another power, namely, that of ‘the rulers of the darkness of this world’,1 ‘the kingdom
2 3
of Satan’, and ‘the reign of Beelzebub over demons’ - i.e. his rule over phantasms that appear in
the air. It’s because that’s what demons are that Satan is called ‘the prince of the power of the
4
air’; and because he rules in the darkness of this world, . . . . those who are under his dominion
are called the ‘children of darkness’, in contrast to the faithful, who are the ‘children of the light’.
For seeing that Beelzebub is prince of phantasms [here = ‘illusions’], the expressions
‘the inhabitants of his dominion of air and darkness’,
‘the children of darkness’, and
‘these demons, phantasms, spirits of illusion’,
all refer allegorically to the same thing. So the kingdom of darkness, as presented in these and
other places in the Bible, is nothing but a conspiracy of deceivers who want to get dominion over
men in this present world, and to that end try by dark and erroneous doctrines to extinguish in
them the light of nature and of the gospel, thus making them unfit for the kingdom of God to
come.
Men who were born blind have no idea at all of the light that the rest of us see through the
bodily eye; more generally, no-one conceives in his imagination any greater light than he has ever
perceived through his outer senses; and it’s like that also with the light of the gospel and the light
of the understanding - no-one can conceive there being any degree of it greater than any that he
has already achieved. That’s why our only way of acknowledging our own darkness is by
reasoning from the unforeseen mischances that befall us along the way. The darkest part of the
kingdom of Satan is the part that lies outside the Church of God, i.e. among those who don’t
believe in Jesus Christ. But we can’t infer that the Church enjoys . . . . all the light we need for the
performance of the work God has told us to do. If we weren’t lost in the dark, or at least in a
mist, how would it come about that in Christendom there has been, almost from the time of the
apostles, so much jostling for position in foreign and civil wars? such stumbling at every little
hardship someone suffers in his own fortune and every little success that he sees others have? such
a variety of ways of running the race towards happiness? We are therefore still in the dark.
179
In the night of our natural ignorance, the enemy has come in and sown the weeds of
spiritual errors, doing this in four distinct ways. (1) By misusing the Bible, putting out its light; for
we go wrong when we don’t know the Bible. (2) By introducing the demonology of the heathen
poets, i.e. their fables about demons, which are really mere . . . . phantasms of the brain, with no
real nature of their own other than what human imagination gives them - I’m talking about dead
men’s ghosts, fairies, and other subjects of old wives’ tales. (3) By mixing in with the Bible
various left-overs from Greek religion and much of the Greeks’ futile and erroneous philosophy,
especially Aristotle’s. (4) By adding to the mix false or uncertain traditions, and invented or
uncertain history. And so we come to err, by taking seriously seducing spirits and the demonology
of those who speak lies in hypocrisy . . . . In this present chapter I shall say a little about (1) the
business of leading men astray by misusing Scripture. ·I shall discuss (2) in chapter 45 [not included
in this version], and (3) and (4) in chapter 46·.
·FIRST MISUNDERSTANDING: ‘THE KINGDOM OF GOD’·
The greatest misuse of Scripture, and the main one - to which most the others are related, either
as causes or effects - is the wrenching around of the Bible so as to make it say that the ‘kingdom
of God’, mentioned so often in the Bible, is
the present Church, or
the multitude of Christian men now living, or
the multitude of Christian men who have lived and will rise again on the last day.
In fact, the kingdom of God was first set up only over the Jews, by the ministry of Moses; which
is why the Jews were called God’s special people. Later on, this ceased with the choice of Saul ·as
king of the Jews·, when the Jews had refused to be governed by God any more, and demanded a
king of the sort that other nations had - to which God consented. (I have laid this out in more
detail in chapter 35 [not included in this version].) From then on there was no ‘kingdom of God’ in
the world except in the sense that He always was, is, and shall be king of all men and of all
creatures, governing according to His will by His infinite power. But He did promise, through His
prophets, to restore His government to them [i.e. the Jews] again, when the time He has secretly
chosen for this arrives, and when they shall turn to Him by repenting and amending their lives. In
addition to that, He invited the gentiles to come in and enjoy the happiness of His reign, on the
same conditions of conversion and repentance ·as are set for the Jews·. And He promised also to
send His son into the world, to expiate [= ‘make amends for’ or ‘pay the penalty for’] the sins of them
all, by his death, and to prepare them by his doctrine to receive him at his second coming. As the
second coming hasn’t yet happened, the kingdom of God hasn’t yet come. The only kings that
now rule over us by a pact ·or agreement· are our civil sovereigns - except for the fact that
Christian men are already in the kingdom of grace, in that they have already been promised that
they’ll be received at the second coming. ·This error about what ‘the kingdom of God’ is or was
leads to at least four very bad consequences, the first of which generates four all of its own. I shall
now describe these·.
1. If the present Church were Christ’s kingdom - which it isn’t - there would be (i) some
one man or assembly through whose mouth our Saviour, now in heaven, would speak, give law,
and represent his person to all Christians; or (ii) several men or assemblies playing this
·mouthpiece· role in different parts of Christendom. (i) The Pope claims to have this ‘royal power
under Christ’ in relation to the whole world; and (ii) in various particular commonwealths that
power is claimed by assemblies of the pastors of the place (though the Bible gives it only to civil
sovereigns). Disputes concerning this power are so passionate that they extinguish the light of
180
nature, causing such a deep darkness in men’s understandings that they can’t see who it is to
whom they have promised their obedience.
1a. The Pope’s claim to be Christ’s deputy in the present world-wide Church . . . .
generates the doctrine that a Christian king must receive his crown through a bishop, as though
that ceremony gave him the right to include ‘by the grace of God’ [Latin deo gratia] because he
isn’t a king by the favour of God unless he is crowned by the authority of God’s deputy-king of
the whole world.
1b. And it generates the further doctrine that every bishop, whoever his sovereign is, takes
an oath of absolute obedience to the Pope when he is first made a bishop.
1c. The papal claim also generates the doctrine of the fourth Lateran Council: ‘If a king
doesn’t purge his kingdom of heresies when told by the pope to do so, is excommunicated
because of this failure, and doesn’t make up for this within a year, then his subjects are released
from the bond of their obedience to him.’ (That is from chapter 3 of Heretics, by Pope Innocent
III under whose auspices that Council was held. In this context, ‘heresies’ are all opinions that the
Church of Rome has forbidden to be maintained.)
1d. It’s because of this doctrine that, in any of the frequent clashes between the Pope’s
political plans and those of other Christian princes, there arises such a mist among their subjects
that they can’t distinguish a stranger who has thrust himself into the space of their lawful prince
from the person whom they themselves had placed there; and in this mental darkness they fight
against one another without distinguishing their enemies from their friends.- all this being staged
by one man’s ambition.
2. [In this paragraph Hobbes writes as though he were drawing on facts about the origins, the etymology,
the deep latent meanings, of ‘clergy’ and ‘laity’. If that’s what he thought he was doing, he seems to have been in
error.] The opinion that the present Church is the kingdom of God has affected how different
people are labelled. Pastors, deacons, and all other ministers of the Church call themselves ‘the
clergy’, labelling everyone else as ‘the laity’, i.e. simply people. ·There’s an issue about money
connected with this, as I’ll now explain·. During His reign over the Israelites, God set aside a part
of the revenue and assigned it to the tribe of Levi, to be their inheritance; ·that was fair because·
they were to be His public ministers, and had no portion of land set aside for them to live on, as
did their brethren. Now, the label ‘clergy’ today signifies those whose upkeep comes from that
same set-aside-by-God part of the national revenue. So the Pope - claiming that the present
Church is the kingdom of God, just as the kingdom of Israel once was - claims for himself and his
subordinate ministers a similar revenue as an inheritance from God; and the name ‘clergy’ was
suitable for that claim. And so we find that the tithes and other tributes paid to the Levites as
God’s right amongst the ancient Israelites have for many years been demanded and taken from
Christians by ecclesiastics, ·who say that they do this· jure divino, i.e. by God’s right. Because of
this, the people everywhere were bound to pay a double tribute - one to the state, another to the
clergy. And the one paid to the clergy ·is disgracefully large, namely· a the tenth of the lay-
person’s income. That’s double what a certain king of Athens (one regarded as a tyrant)
demanded from his subjects to pay all public expenses; he demanded a mere twentieth part ·of
each person’s income·, which was plenty for the maintenance of the commonwealth. And in the
kingdom of the Jews during God’s priestly reign, the tithes and offerings were the whole public
revenue, ·not a church-related payment on top of a government-related one·.
181
3. The wrong doctrine that the present Church is the kingdom of God has led to the
distinction between
civil laws, i.e. the acts of sovereigns in their own dominions, and
canon law. i.e. the acts of the Pope in those same dominions.
These ‘canons’ started out by being nothing but canons, i.e. rules propounded and voluntarily
accepted by Christian princes, and this was the case until Charlemagne became emperor; but from
then on, as the Pope’s power increased, the canon law became rules that were commanded, and
the emperors themselves were forced to let them count as laws, for fear of greater mischiefs that
the people, blinded ·by the darkness of biblical error·, might otherwise be led into.
That’s why it is that in every country where the Pope’s ecclesiastical power is entirely
accepted, Jews and Turks and pagans are tolerantly allow to practice and profess their own
religion as long as they don’t in any way offend against the civil power; whereas in those same
countries a foreigner who comes in and is a Christian but not a Roman Catholic has committed a
capital offence, because the Pope claims that all Christians are his subjects. If it weren’t for the
mixing of canon ‘law’ with civil law, it would be as much against the law of nations to persecute
a Christian foreigner for professing the religion of his own country as to persecute an unbeliever -
or rather more, because those who are not against Christ are with him.
4. That same mistake regarding the kingdom of God brings it about that in every Christian
state certain men are exempt, by ecclesiastical liberty, from the tributes and from the tribunals of
the civil state. [‘Ecclesiastical liberty’ is the official name of the setup in which the clergy don’t have to pay civil
taxes and aren’t answerable for crimes in the civil courts.] That’s the situation of all the Roman Catholic
priests - not just the monks and friars but also the ordinary clergy who don’t belong to any special
religious order. ·And there are ever so many of them·: in some places they are such a big
proportion of the total population that they could make up an army all by themselves, if the
Church militant wanted to employ them against their own or other princes.
[After dealing with the second and third misunderstandings, Hobbes will return to this one,
devoting four pages to detailed discussion - some of it very intricate - of biblical passages that
might seem to support the view that the kingdom of God exists now, having begun with the
resurrection of Jesus. If that is right, Hobbes demands, then why do Christians now pray ‘(Let)
thy kingdom come’? Another of his points:- Some theologians have held that in Genesis 1:16 -
‘God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night’ -
the greater light signifies the Pope and the lesser one the king. Hobbes remarks scornfully: ‘One
might as well argue that in Genesis 1:1 ‘heaven’ refers to the Pope and ‘earth’ refers to the king.]
·SECOND MISUNDERSTANDING: ‘CONSECRATION’·
A second general misuse of Scripture is interpreting ‘consecration’ as standing for ·something
magical - i.e.· conjuration or enchantment. In the Bible, to ‘consecrate’ something is to offer,
give, or dedicate it . . . . to God, by separating it from common use; i.e. to sanctify it, to make it
God’s, and to ·set it aside to· be used only by those whom God has appointed to be His public
ministers. (I have already shown this in chapter 35. The consecrated ‘thing’ may, of course, be a
man.) This ceremony doesn’t change the thing that is consecrated; all it changes is how that thing
is used, barring everyday non-religious use of it and reserving it for uses that are holy and are
especially in the service of God. When it is claimed that such ·ceremonial· words change the
nature or quality of the thing itself, that’s not consecration. It is either an extraordinary work of
God, or a futile and impious bit of supposed magic. But it happens - or is alleged to happen -
much too often to count as an extraordinary work; so it has to be a conjuration or incantation - ·a
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
